Korean penninsula and India/Pak comparison

Last week I heard a talk by Ambassador Jhe Seong-Ho, South Korea's ambassador at-large for human rights.  He took care to outline the philosophy underpinning the new administration's stances toward North Korea. Basically, it was a total rejection of past South Korean policy and of liberal-internationalist theories of International Relations: for example, the idea that economic exchange can lead to peace, or that participation in multilateral institutions might alter the behavior of rogue states.

These are the sorts of actions that Ambassador Jhe characterized as "appeasement" toward the North.  He said that South Korean president Lee Myung-bak's administration--they've been in power for almost a year--has a very different approach to relations with North Korea then the last couple of governments in Seoul.  They're skeptical of sunshine policies and generally take a more hard-line approach to relations with the North.  Ambassador Jhe used strong language to characterize prior approaches... he said that his predecessors were "begging for talks" and took on a "subservient posture."

The new policy of the South Korean government is "cool and detached."  No more exchange unless the North offers true reciprocity, and no more "romantic" multilateral efforts unless the bilateral relationships are on a strong footing.

This issue of engagement vs. non-engagement is always in play between India and Pakistan.  In the last couple of decades different administrations and leaders have taken different approaches.  And really, the policies have not been so consistent by administration...the same leaders advocate conciliatory or hard-line views depending on the political moment.   A stark example is early 1999, when Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee met and signed the Lahore accords and there was hope of better relations, but just a few months later the two countries were almost at war and even low-level meetings of officials were unlikely.  The rhetoric that justified these actions also see-saws.  Depending on the political climate, sometimes India says it will not engage with Pakistan unless Pakistan makes a concession first, like clamping down on terrorism in Kashmir.  At other times, like in early 1999, high level leaders meet in order to hammer out compromises.

But in both South Asia and the Korean penninsula, despite these various approaches, the same basic tense situation persists.  Part of it must be that the two sides in either conflict have such diametrically opposed goals on a couple of key issues (unification of the Korean penninsula, Kashmir) that it seems like the strategies of administrations, engagement or non-engagement, are unlikely to accomplish much.  Such tactics only matter in an environment where some amount of cooperation is possible.  But when there's no room for give or take on a particular issue, does it matter which theoretical school of thought you're coming from?

Article: The President-elect and India

This was a great article about future U.S. relations with India. Martha Nussbaum, the author, is a renowned scholar of Indian soceity and politics, and she's particularly attuned to minority rights and religious violence. Its nice to see those topics addressed in the context of U.S. policy toward India.

The article brings up the issue of NRIs and how they affect US-India policies. (NRI = Non Resident Indian, the Indian government's term for Indians who live abroad). I am, of course, really interested in the political activism of immigrant groups, and I think NRIs in the United States are a particularly interesting community. The 2000 Census counts about 1.6 million Indians in the United States. Its by and large a professional and affluent immigrant group. Nussbaum writes that the NRI community is active on issues like business and entrepreneurship and the US-India nuclear deal. And, her article recognizes that they are an interesting piece of the Hindu-Muslim political picture. But she doesn't go into it in too much detail, so here's my snippet of thoughts on the matter.

Its not unusual for immigrants to be involved in home-country politics, and sometimes, for them to have more hard-line political views than people in the country itself. For example, a friend of mine who lived in Israel for years says that American Jews tend to be more hawkish than most Jews he knew in Israel... maybe simply because the American media doesn't offer the spectrum of views about the Israel-Palestine conflict that are available to Israelis through what my friend describes as a very vibrant and thoughtful Israeli press.  Another example:  Cubans in the United States are known for their hard-line views on the Castro regime and US-Cuba relations as compared to Cubans in Cuba (although that is starting to change).

A similar dynamic might apply to Indians. Its possible that the beliefs of Hindu nationalists in the United States are actually more hardened and polarized than those of many of their counterparts in India because they are further removed from the complexities of Hindu-Muslim politics and interactions.  Since they don't actually live in that society, maybe they have fewer personal reasons to compromise.

To give a very stark example: In 1994, the Federation of Hindu Associations of Los Angeles awarded its “Hindu of the Year” title to Bal Thackeray. Thackeray is the leader of the Shiv Sena, and is a total extremist. He has advocated violence against Muslims, praised Hitler and incited riots in Mumbai. This award for Thackeray in the United States came at a time when the BJP, a mainstream nationalist party with strong links to extremist elements, was quickly toning down its nationalist rhetoric because so many Indians in India were shocked by the destruction of the Babri mosque and were pretty disenchanted with militant nationalism. So the political views of this Indian-American umbrella association were out of sync with the spirit of Indian politics at the time. Another example: a year after the destruction of the mosque, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (an American offshoot of a Hindu extremist group) raised over $1 million.

For more on this, see Vinay Lal's essay about the Indian diaspora in the United States. Its also worth mentioning that according to Lal, the BJP has more support among Indians in the United States than any other party.

international newspapers and the US election

There is much speculation about the effect of an Obama presidency on international public opinion toward the United States.  So this morning I checked the front pages of international newspapers to get a sense of the tone of their coverage of the US election.  Here are the results of my un-scientific scan.

Most English-language papers had the American election story on their front page-- it was the main headline and main picture.  They generally used positive and hyperbolic language, like "sweep," "swamp," "landslide," and "historic."  I went to some non-English sites too... and although I couldn't read most of the articles, it was clear that the main stories were about Obama's victory, since there were usually pictures of him alongside the text.

A major exception were the Russian news sites.  Almost every Russian newspaper I saw either ignored the elections or mentioned them toward the bottom of the page.  I checked Kommersant, a Russian online daily, which didn't mention the US election except one headline about half way down that said "Obama's victory won't warm Russia's-US relations."  No mention on The Moscow Times, which is a leading English language Russian newspaper.  The Interfax Information Agency, a major Russian news service that tends to be pro-Kremlin, did have a glossy bar of U.S. election links and thumbnail pictures that looked like an advertisement toward the bottom of its front page.

The one Russian exception I found was also the most anti-US international story about the election.  Pravda, which is a pro-government new site, led with the headline, "A Change for the better":

Only Satan would have been worse than the Bush regime. Therefore it could be argued that the new administration in the USA could never be worse than the one which divorced the hearts and minds of Americans from their brothers in the international community, which appalled the rest of the world with shock and awe tactics that included concentration camps, torture, mass murder and utter disrespect for international law. Yet in choosing Obama, the people of America have opted to come back into the international fold. Welcome back, friends!

At the other end of this spectrum are the Indian newspapers.  In general my experience with the Indian press is that they are pretty attuned to US politics.

The main Times of India story: 

Obama wins, America triumphs: The planet's best-loved and often-reviled nation upheld the noble ideals of its founding fathers by electing a mixed-race African-American as its 44th president.

Even the Mumbai Mirror, which is a sometimes-gossipy local paper, highlighted American elections news.  It was a reader's poll in the place of its main front page headline "Will the election of Barack Obama as the US President benefit India?" (When I checked, 58% said yes).

Online newspapers in the two countries to which Obama has personal links-- Kenya and Indonesia-- led with personal stories.

The Jakarta Post (Indonesia): Menteng students overjoyed with Obama's win

Obama... Obama... Obama... We love you!" yelled hundreds of students from all grades in a Menteng elementary school in Central Jakarta on Wednesday, as they watched results come in for the U.S. presidential election. Students and teachers were overjoyed to suspend classes, gather in a 1,500 square meter ballroom and witness how a former student of the school became elected the next president of the United States.

The Standard (Kenya): Mama Sarah: No need for early celebrations.

No early celebrations please! Let’s keep on praying until it’s all over!" This was the message from Mama Sarah Hussein Obama, as she waited for the results of the US elections.

Lastly, here are some more usual headlines.  All except the last were the lead story on the new organization's website.  The Venezuelan one is interesting because it frames the election win in a way that focuses on Chavez instead of Obama.  And I like the Canadian one for its contrast to the general euphoria... it was all business.  Nothing about change and historic elections and such; already focused on the transistion.

BBC News (UK)

Obama wins historic US election: Democratic Senator Barack Obama is elected the first black president of the US, prompting celebrations across the country as he promises that "change has come to America.

The Globe and Mail (Canada)

Obama pressed to fill top jobs: U.S. president-election Barack Obama has transition operation well under way to fill positions such as Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State

Al-Jazeera

Obama Sweeps to US Presidency: President-elect promises to bring about change after emphatic victory over John McCain.

New York Times

Obama Is Elected President as Racial Barrier Falls: Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday, sweeping away the last racial barrier in American politics with ease as the country chose him as its first black chief executive.

Daily Jang (Pakistan)

The time for change has come in America. (In Urdu: Amreeka mai tabdeelee ka wakht aa gaya hai).

El Nacional (Venezuela)

Chavez congratulates Obama for "historic victory" and hopes for the beginning of new relations with Washington. (In Spanish: Chávez felicita a Obama por "victoria histórica" y espera inicio de nuevas relaciones con Washington)

People's Daily Online (China; I think this newspaper is run by the CCP)

Obama wins U.S. Presidential elections (This was not the main headline... it was on the sidebar, and the main stories on the page were about China)

US foreign policy in Asia

Yesterday I heard a talk by a McCain adviser about the candidate's position on foreign policy toward Asia.  I can't refer to him by name because his talk was off the record.

He said that one of his biggest worries for US strategic relationships with Asian countries is how the United States' handling of the North Korea nuclear weapons issue has affected our credibility with Japan and South Korea.  I think he was referring to the controversy regarding how the United States tried to cover up the fact that Pakistan (a U.S. ally) was a middle man in a transfer of nuclear material between North Korea and Libya.  Or maybe he was referring to the Bush administration's general diplomatic process.  But his point was that there is a trust problem that U.S. diplomats need to address.  He said that whatever the U.S. does next, its actions have to be lock-step with Japan and South Korea, implying that maybe he thinks the United States has been working at cross purposes with these countries lately.

He also told an interesting story about his conversation with a high level Bush administration person, who you have definitely heard of but I won't name because he said it was off-the-record.  He had called to question that person's planned absence at a summit of Southeast Asian countries.   He described various reasons why it was important for this official to show up, which sounded fine to me.  And that official said something along the lines of "If you want Southeast Asia to take you seriously, you have to show you're serious on the Middle East peace process."  Meaning that the Middle East was sort of a vehicle for the United States to be effective in diplomacy in other regions as well.  

I was surprised because it sounds like a dangerous approach, pinning diplomatic success in Asia to progress in a very difficult conflict.  But the McCain guy didn't offer commentary on that... just that it was an interesting window into how some members of the foreign policy establishment think.